page counter []
"...it's difficult to find a fraud of this size on the U.S. court system in U.S. history... where you have literally tens of thousands of fraudulent documents filed in tens of thousands of cases." Raymond Brescia, a visiting professor at Yale Law School

* "Los Angeles County got the best courts that money could buy". KNBC (October 16, 2008) * "Innocent people remain in prison" LAPD Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) * Los Angeles County is "the epicenter of the epidemic of real estate and mortgage fraud." FBI (2004) * “…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit." Prof David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * “This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states… and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.” Prof Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine Law School (2000) * "Condado de Los Angeles tiene las mejores canchas que el dinero puede comprar".KNBC (16 de octubre de 2008) * "Las personas inocentes permanecen en prisión" LAPD Blue Ribbon Panel de Revisión Report (2006) * Condado de Los Angeles es "el epicentro de la epidemia de bienes raíces y el fraude de la hipoteca." FBI (2004) * "... Los jueces juzgado y condenado a un asombroso número de personas por crímenes que no cometieron." Prof. David Burcham, Loyola Law School, LA (2000) * "Esta es una conducta asociada con los dictadores más represivos y los estados de la policía ... y los jueces deben compartir la responsabilidad, cuando es condenado a personas inocentes." Prof. Erwin Chemerinksy, Irvine, la Facultad de Derecho (2000)

Thousands of Rampart-FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) remain locked up more than a decade after official, expert, and media report documented that they were falsely prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in the largest court corruption sandal in the history of the United States...

Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006):


Nuestro derecho a acceso los expedientes publicos, nuestra libertad y nuestros derechos humanos fundamentales están todos conectados en las caderas!

10-10-01 Corruption of the California courts noticed by the United Nations

In summer 2010, the staff report of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, as part of the first ever, 2010 UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States, noticed and referenced the Human Rights Alert April 2010 submission, pertaining to "corruption of the courts, the legal profession, and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

10-10-01 United Nations Human Rights Council Records for 2010 Review (UPR) of Human Rights in the United States

Sunday, October 31, 2010

10-10-31 More on elements of computer fraud opined in the online access and case management systems of the US courts - from OAK discussion board


Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 14 hours ago
Computer Fraud Opined in the Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International, Peer-reviewed Law Journal
[for full text of this comment, see:
10-10-30 Computer Fraud Opined in Online Public Access and Case Management Systems of the US Courts in Paper Submitted for International Peer-reviewed Law Journal

Dr. A. D. Jackson
Comment by Dr. A. D. Jackson 12 hours ago
In El Lago County ((nom de plume)) IN, some time back there was a problem with incompatible computer systems wreaking havoc between different offices and sometimes in the same office. Electronic records didn't square with paper or other electronic records until computer systems were replaced and unified. Whether that and California being broke has anything to do with it, I'm in no position to know but only posed the question.

I am also aware of some judges making wrong rulings when they didn't seem to understand the law. An inbecile can make errors on the law and no doubt will, but the errors will be random as the goof will screw up things for both sides in about equal proportion. But when "misunderstanding" of the law tends to beneft politically connected lawfirms and vested interests, that clearly is not random error. As far as intentional violations of civil rights, we have addressed that in correspondence to appropriate government officials who often choose to do nothing, which topic we have also addressed.

The prospect of bias and conflict of interest in the Fine case has received considerable comment and no doubt arose in his pleadings. One would hope that Fine had been released much sooner. The hour is late, and I drone on too long.



Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 8 hours ago
Dear Dr Jackson:
Very interesting stories indeed... A person like me, with no legal training, is a bit surprised by your story spinning discussion style. Let's try to be more structured in our discussion of the matter at hand. How about agreeing first on the definition of fraud and the respective elements of Fraud.
Here are some definitions:
a) Fraud is a deliberate misrepresentation which causes another person to suffer damages.
b) Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual.
Therefore, for conduct to be found as fraud, it should include the following elements:
a) False
b) Deliberately misleading
c) Intended for gain or to inflict harm on others.
Do we agree so far?
P.S. I used the Richard Fine case only because people were familiar with it. I had by now a whole archive of alleged Fraud on the Court at the US courts, derived from US courts from coast to coast... After I submitted the first manuscript I was asked to cut it down in size 5-fold. Let's see what the reviewers will say about the short version.


Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 10 minutes ago
It appears that Dr Jackson tacitly admitted that today the online records published by the US courts are false.
a) This element requires also the demonstration of "Reliance".
Today counsel, parties, and the public at large effectively rely on PACER dockets and PACER records as their primary, if not exclusive route for access to the US court records. When one goes to the offices of the clerks, and requests to inspect and to copy records, pursuant to First Amendment rights, the clerks routinely refer the public to PACER on computer terminals, which are installed and available in the offices of the clerks. Records, upon request, are then printed off these terminals.
b) The deliberately misleading nature of the system is further demonstrated by the denial of access in PACER to the authentication records (NEFs and NDAs), which are available only in CM/ECF. Therefore, parties, counsel, and the public-at-large, are referred to a system, where they would not be able to distinguish between valid and effectual judicial records, such that command "full faith and credit", and void, not voidable records.
c) Furthermore, as documented in the paper, which was submitted for peer-review, the PACER dockets today hold both types of records. The courts, and counsel who are authorized in a given case, can distinguish between the two types of records. Parties, unauthorized counsel, and the public-at-large cannot.
d) The deliberately misleading nature of the systems is further documented by denial of access, upon explicit written requests to the various US courts and courts of appeals, for First Amendment right to inspect and to copy the NEFs or NDAs in various cases.
e) The deliberately misleading nature of the systems is further documented by the refusal of the clerks to certify the PACER dockets, albeit, without ever admitting or informing the requester that such dockets, in certain cases, are false court records.
f) The clerks of the courts, and also the Chief Judge of the US District Court, Central District of California, refused to correct false and deliberately misleading records, which had been published online in PACER, even after they were reliably informed of the fraudulent nature of such records, in disregard of the Code of Conduct of US Judges.
As documented in the paper, which was submitted for peer review, such systems are routinely employed by the US courts from the US district courts, through the courts of appeals, to the Supreme Court of the United States to deprive persons of Liberty and the Right for Possession. 


Comment by Joseph Zernik, Los Angeles, CA 1 second ago


No comments:

Post a Comment

Please Sign Petition - Free Richard Fine // Por favor, Firme la petición - Liberar a Richard Fine

RICHARD FINE was arrested on March 4, 2009 and is held since then in solitary confinement in Twin Tower Jail in Los Angeles, California, with no records,  conforming with the fundamentals of the law, as the basis for his arrest and jailing.

Richard Fine - 70 year old, former US prosecutor, had shown that judges in Los Angeles County had taken "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). On February 20, 2009, the Governor of California signed "retroactive immunities" (pardons) for all judges in Los Angeles. Less than two weeks later, on March 4, 2009 Richard Fine was arrested in open court, with no warrant. He is held ever since in solitary confinement in Los Angeles, California. No judgment, conviction, or sentencing was ever entered in his case.

Please sign the petition: Free Richard Fine -